/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

No, Khrushchev, stop growing cotton and corn, and put the Deng beetle away.

>>661126
Im not asking about privatizing or dismantling the soviet system
but rather if the planned nature of the soviet system could work for exports

Capitalists export because they want to pay their workers less than they produce total. Exports for communists are useful only in as much as they pay for imports, meaning that if you have everything produced at home at reasonable prices why the fuck would you want to export anything at all? Every ounce of exports is stuff your people won't be consuming in such a case.

Don't be a lib who wants to braindead-ly emulate every bit of "developed" nations, but rather analyze why they do exports. China does exports because they import stuff they need - like oil, for example; USSR was exporting grain and oil during Stalin's years because they were importing factories and production lines.

>>661130
You can plan anything. Why, though, would you need to export orientate a socialist economy?

>>661254
I mean i said this

>Could the soviet union by becoming an exporter gain access to foriegn markets and thus can buy and or gain access to foriegn capital or money.

<foriegn capital aka imports of foreign goods necessary for developmental reasons



so yeah thats what i meant

also this

>Capitalists export because they want to pay their workers less than they produce total.

eh its more complicated like for example in the case of sk taiwan or japan the export oriented strategy was to gain profits which in turn could be used to buy industrial imports and etc for domestic development


>>661256

so to gain access to foriegn markets and then in turn take any foriegn technological, economic and industrial developments to then be used back for domestic developmental reasons

it's only advantageous to export manufactured goods, and the soviet union was not interested in making the kinds of manufactured goods for the international market nor would it have been smart for them obviously

>>661463
(apart from weapons, that is)

>>661463
Khruschevite/brezhnevite USSR was exporting cars to UK and Europe when their own people had a shortage of cars, though.

>>661585
Just like Mao's China was exporting grain to the USSR when his own people were starving
And Stalin's USSR was exporting Ukrainian crops to Russia when the Ukrainians were dying

>>661059
At the height of Soviet "stagnation", exports value was still higher than imports and GDP growth was 2.5%. So on many aspects the Soviet Union always was an export-oriented economy.
The Soviet gov' got lazy after the death of Stalin and neglected light industry and kept focusing on expanding production capacity. Also industries that underperformed their production quotas were given more resources instead of punishing them, leading to directors keeping workers idle on purpose to avoid meeting quotas and getting more gibs at the end of the 5-year plan.
This and the waste of money on armaments instead of production efficiency (they were left behind in robotics yet Buran was the first space vehicle to fly automatically without pilots).

Read imperialismt the highest stage of capitalism.

Exporting more to foreign markets than importing is not rational on a national scale, it only makes sense of you want to export capital to those countries. It can work as a strategy to bind the world to you though, like China has done.

>>662701
I mean it depends entirely on the certain type of product and good, and also historically the export strategy is one that historically worked in places like sk japan and taiwan and caused the rise of domestic industries in these countries.

Meanwhile countries that focused solely on import substitution and domestic development be they capitalist or socialist havent exactly worked as well as exporters

>>662706

I meant
>worked as well as exporters

worked as well compared to exporters is what i meant

>>662692
however i have read that in terms of the exports that the soviet tried to get competitive in

weapons

the soviets actually employed quality control standards, focused heavy on improving the products, and etc

>>661587
Congrats for believing glowie propaganda.

>>661059
Definitely. But the Soviet Union must also allow investors to invest in their land.

aplicar el Dengismo, man.

>>661585
>Khruschevite/brezhnevite USSR was exporting cars to UK and Europe when their own people had a shortage of car
literally meaningless to even bring this up in your reply unless you're attempting to blame "khruschevite/brezhnevite" policy on automobile production and accessibility. soviets citizens had difficulty buying cars (since the stalin era btw, unless you think they were in any way accessible until the 60s lol) and would continue to because they were expensive + the process of acquiring one (waiting lists weren't literal decades as if often portrayed but you often still had to wait among other things.) soviet wages increased pretty much through its entire existence so i fail to see how this is the fault of the kremlin. ironically (like many things) cars could be really difficult or really easy to get depending on where in eastern europe you were, e.g. czechoslovaks never had a shortage, whereas ossies did.

>>661585
>extraordinaries claims require extraodinary evidence
>quote
. . .

>>661289
>foriegn capital aka imports of foreign goods necessary for developmental reasons
I think you kinda answered your question yourself:
Central planned economy.
Yeah, when you have that you can plan to grow exports to cover some "developmental" parts.
>>661289

>Capitalists export because they want to pay their workers less than they produce a total.
Au contrary, they want to export to earn more in areas where there is more cash to pay for what they produce. Unless I am not understanding what you meant by that.
>>661289

>eh its more complicated like for example in the case of sk taiwan or japan the export oriented strategy was to gain profits which in turn could be used to buy industrial imports and etc for domestic development
Much of Taiwan or japan (I think you meant South Korea instead of ROC) is that their decissions were political to meet the capitalist quota with IMF loans, the U.S. loans, etc, to growth the U.S. imperialism influence there through proxy states, tho they grow too much they are now *more/or/less independent from the U.S.
*More less than more.

>>674500
>Much of Taiwan or japan (I think you meant South Korea instead of ROC) is that their decissions were political to meet the capitalist quota with IMF loans, the U.S. loans, etc, to growth the U.S. imperialism influence there through proxy states, tho they grow too much they are now *more/or/less independent from the U.S.
*More less than more.

mate the imf loan was during the 1990s. im talking about when they were developing.

and also lol this is not true the us actually didnt really want these countries to develop the way they did. on the contrary these countries actively ignored us adviced and did literal dirigsme export styles so to get money, goods and etc from foriegn markets which in turn to develop their own country.

>foriegn capital aka imports of foreign goods necessary for developmental reasons

except the thing is even if its a planned economy or not its limited to the resources the country has. with a export oriented economy instead you gain the resources of the entire global market, and etc. One can lead to way more rapid development than the other.


>Au contrary, they want to export to earn more in areas where there is more cash to pay for what they produce. Unless I am not understanding what you meant by that.

yes and then they use that money to gain foriegn exchange, to buy foriegn nescessary products and etc.

>>661059
Who would have bought from them stupid?
>UK
The world's biggest empire, massively spooked after seeing the Romanovs get liquidated
>Germany
Full of reactionaries, also blocked by Poland
>US
In the middle of the First Red Scare
>France, Spain
On the other side of Europe
>Italy
Fascists
>Turkey
A secular liberal state under Ataturk

China only got access to Western markets by turning its back on the USSR.

>and did literal dirigsme export styles

and their dirigsme exports often went directions the us did not want or planned or even supported

You people try to find the golden geese is pathetic. It only proves to others in the eyes of neoliberals that socialism sucks if you need to find that perfect secret sauce to a socialist economy. Utopians the lot of you, get over it, the Soviet Union is gone and there is no amount of pondering over it that will help you find answers, all questions have been exhausted ad nauseum. Put your heads in the economic needs or the present, of the here and now instead of fantasy.

>>674506

>Who would have bought from them stupid?

simple the western european capitalists,and the asian countries. Capitalists only think in short term, and once the western capitalists see the profits that could be made from soviet labor they will take it. Why because they care about only money. meanwhile the asian countries that were developing could have looked at soviet products and imported them to help develop their countries

also for your list

yes and those countries also became strong. those nations became empires and strong countries because they did the export oriented model. They conquored the world and pretty much created this international capitalist exploitive system, because they understood that exports=strength. If we dont understand why they became strong and use it against them, then we will ends up becoming weak and defeated.
hell this doesnt only apply to socialist countries only, capitalist countries that pursued import substitution also got cucked.

>China only got access to Western markets by turning its back on the USSR.

it was kruschev that started this fiasco, not china.

>>674505
>mate the imf loan was during the 1990s
that's why i gave a set of examples,but yeah, they created the "asiatic miracle" by just cashing a lot of loans or direct cash (in the case of SK after the warduring ten years most of the SK GDP, ~from 90 to 60%, was direct U.S. cash to outcompete NK) creating cheap maquilas that were meant to export to wealthy countries and so on, which allowed them to grow. Do not fool yourself about what a planned central economy can achieve through exports, because the capitalist ruling class would ban the exports of the communists countries (as you could see in different scenarios, Eastern Germany produced state of the art trucks, cars, electrodmestics, but they never arrived to main capitalists countries).

>>674512

>Eastern Germany produced state of the art trucks, cars, electrodmestics, but they never arrived to main capitalists countries).

I need to research this because i have read about the east german plan in the 1960s and how one of the leaders wanted to do a sk style export promotion key industry plan

but im unsure whatever that was because the plan was prevented from reaching full completion, or the capitalists prevented those exports. because i read about there being extreme controversy and infighting over the export plan that caused it to collapse

>>674518
>
>but im unsure whatever that was because the plan was prevented from reaching full completion, or the capitalists prevented those exports. because i read about there being extreme controversy and infighting over the export plan that caused it to collapse

uh what i meant to say is


but im unsure whatever that plan failed because the plan was prevented from reaching full completion, or the capitalists prevented those exports. because i read about there being extreme controversy and infighting over the export plan that caused it to collapse

>>674509

but what we consider capitalism did not suddenly come out of existance. The modern form of capitalism only came out of multiple historical developments, crisis, and contradictions until we reached the golden sauce of capitalism.

socialism meanwhile has only had a meager 100 years in terms of development country wise. Its not making socialism look bad, its instead recognizing that socialism is still suprisingly a young thing that will go through twists and turn until we finally find the most correct model of socialism developmental wise

>>674530
ESL retard can't write for shit, complete incoherence.

The Soviet Union WAS export oriented, but its trade was in primary commodities like grain, oil, gas and raw materials, not manufactured goods. According to Red Globalization (PDF attached, haven't actually read it but dug up stats for some old debate over State Capitalism), export accounted for as big a share of the USSR's economy as Japan. From what I can gather, the revenues from these exports were essential to get the foreign currencies needed to buy capital goods (factory machines and the like) from the west. This western productive equipment would then serve the domestic Soviet economy, making capital-intensive products like TVs, cameras, air conditioners and the like.

This is where the USSR differs from the "asian tiger" developmental state model of Japan, Korea, the PRC and the like. Those states protected consumer markets from foreign competition in order to foster their own capital-intensive export industries. Rather than getting stuck growing bananas and sewing Nikes for export to the US, the state would foster the development of focused, world class export industries like optics and semiconductors. The consumer market in the USSR was certainly protected from western imports, but they were never able to build a capital-intensive export industry for themselves. This is where I go from semi-informed to completely clueless, so I'll try to talk about an industry I know a bit about: cameras.

The USSR had a quite large optical industry for the duration of the cold war. IIRC it was the second largest in the world, behind Japan. Early on in the 1950s, these cameras were legitimate world class competitors to cameras produced in Germany and Japan. Granted, a big reason for this was literally packing up and relocating German optical factories to Ukraine as WWII reparations, but Soviet cameras were more than just straight copies. The Leningrad camera for example (pic related) was a homegrown design that was more feature packed than the best of Leica and Nikon, most notably for its unique clockwork motor drive.

After this peak however the Soviet camera industry stopped trying to best the west and its designs ceased to be competitive in the 1960s. By the 70s and 80s they were laughably outdated and Soviet photographers paid obscene prices to get black market Nikons from Japan. In the 1950s attempts were made to market Soviet cameras for export to the west, but now they were a protected industry for the "second world". The GDR on the other hand kept its camera designs somewhat competitive and DID export to western Europe to compete in the low end SLR market. I believe more Prakticas were sold for export than for domestic consumption. When the dissolution of the USSR came however, Japanese cameras were allowed to compete and handily crushed both the Soviet and East German camera industry.

After writing all that I'm not sure what lesson can be learned from it, but I'll try to make one. The Soviet Union had production in many capital intensive industries like optics, but it could not compete with the capitalist west in any of them. The question is whether it would have been possible or desirable to foster a high tech export industry the same way the "asian tigers" did. My intuition is no, but with a twist: the asian tigers were only allowed to pursue their developmental state strategy BECAUSE of the Soviet Union. The US empire put up with anti-competitive trade policy from the east Asian capitalist states because it needed to bolster these economies against the "threat of communism" and provide a better standard of living than the PRC and DPRK next door. The USSR on the other hand was sanctioned and surrounded. Its high tech industries were increasingly taken up for military purposes, and therefore competition in western markets had to be abandoned.

>>674557
i argue tho that while it would have been hard to compete due to western sactions, the soviets should have still pursued high tech, and high capital intensive competitiveness, because they needed to get another form of profit. After all one of the big causes for the soviet stagnation in the 1980s was the fall of oil revenues. Not only that the soviet union was having problems in terms of resource extraction, for the new resource extraction sites of 1970s and 1980s required high costs in order to operate.

If the soviet union was able to gain income from different sources of exports then these problems would have been avoided or at least minimized

>>674557
>but with a twist: the asian tigers were only allowed to pursue their developmental state strategy BECAUSE of the Soviet Union. The US empire put up with anti-competitive trade policy from the east Asian capitalist states because it needed to bolster these economies against the "threat of communism" and provide a better standard of living than the PRC and DPRK next door. The USSR on the other hand was sanctioned and surrounded. Its high tech industries were increasingly taken up for military purposes, and therefore competition in western markets had to be abandoned.

also i find this argument really interesting

>>674557
good effort post
thanks